RE: [DS] An incomplete AAR :-)

Good to get even an incomplete AAR!

First, VTOL's may not have greater than size-3 weapons (p.14). This may
or
may not have had an effect on the game.

In a game like this it is often a race to reach the objectives. If you
can
occupy them first (with the correct units), it may be difficult to
dislodge
you. This is why there are often extra objective markers placed. Only
the
player trying to enter the objective knows which ones are true and which
ones are fake -or- knows which ones are of primary imporatance and which
ones are of minor importance. If both sides are trying to take
objectives,
it is sometimes good to have each side roll randomly to determine the
importance of each objective. 

The force that you fielded did not seem to be an optimial mix for the
game.
But a commander does not always get to choose his forces. Infantry in an
urban area are TOUGH to dislodge.

You are correct, Forward observers would have helped in the game quite a
bit. Artillery is powerful in DS2. Wait for your opponent to move and
call a
strike on where it stops. With no command activation, the target cannot
move
and is usually swated.

It sounds as if his 2 proged attack led you to split your attack. If he
needed to take all three (of 3) objectives, then concentrating on one
arm of
the attack may have been preferable (in part it depends how close the
objectives were to his starting possition). 

Did he have to take the objectives with infantry or would any unit work?
If
any unit, it would be more difficult, and taking the objectives yourself
may
have worked. If it required an infantry unit, then specificially
targeting
the APCs (if fire was not drawn by an attack) may have been part of a
good
strategy.

I agree. A time limit (actual time or number of turns) is often a good
motivator for a game. It keeps the action going and can force a player
to
take chances. In the game you described, you could have had
reinforcements
arriving in X number of turns. If Ted's units were not in place by that
time, he would have to try to withdraw with x%+ of his force intact. Or
he
could have had reinforcements comming. You would have had to keep him
from
taking 2 of the 3 objectives by the time reinforcements arrived and then
get
off the board with x% of your forces.

As a defender, you should have had either supperior numbers or been
closer
to the objectives. This is a failure I had in the first year I ran the
Moonbase Xi DS2 scenario at GZGECC. The LLAR had to enter a base with
infantry, then get them off the board again. The UN forces were too far
away
from the base at the beginning of the game to keep them from stopping
the
LLAR from entering the base.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Feel free to ignore what does not make
sense to
you.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/ds2/
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Casquilho, Daniel [SMTP:Daniel.Casquilho@disney.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 11:29 AM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	[DS] An incomplete AAR :-)
> 
> Hello All,
> 
>	I did not think of doing an "AAR" so I did not keep good notes. 
> Here is what I remember along with notes of what I believe I should 
> do different. If I have something wrong Ted please join in :-)
> 
>	We set up a defense scenario using the boarder raid from the 
> DSII rulebook as our guide. The table had a couple of hills, two small

> lakes, about six spots of forest, and three "urban" areas. The three 
> objective markers where placed one per urban area. Ted needed to place

> a ground unit on each of the markers and then pull at least half of
his 
> units off the table.
> 
>	My force was:
> 1 HQ Squad (1 HQ vehicle + 1 Area Defense Vehicle)
> 1 Hvy Tank Platoon
> 1 Light Tank Platoon
> 1 Anti-Tank Platoon
> 1 Size 1 Walker Cadre (4 Walkers)
> 1 MRL Battery
> 1 Infantry Platoon
> 
>	Ted's force (from memory) was:
> 1 HQ Vehicle
> 1 VTOL w/HEL/5s 
> 1 MedVac VTOL
> 1 Area Defense Vehicle
> 1 Heavy GEV Tank Platoon
> 2 Med. GEV Tank Platoons
> 1 Platoon of Size 1 GEV w/GMLs
> 2 GEV based Infantry Platoons
> 1 MRL Battery
> 
> Ted made a two pronged attack up the sides of the table. Each prong 
> had a med. tank platoon and a GEV based Infantry platoon. His 
> heavy tank and small size 1 GEVs went up the right side.
> On my left the attack was blunted but at a high cost to me. On my 
> right the story was different. I was not able to kill enough to stop 
> him.By the end of turn five he had enough stuff in place that I would 
> not be able to stop him. We called the game a victory for him.
> 
> Thoughts overall: We did not have a turn limit of any kind. The game 
> could go on for ever if we wanted it to. This made it a war of
attrition. 
> I had to kill two or more elements for each element I lost.  And of
course
> 
> I failed to do so. This could have been avoided with either a) a limit
on 
> time or b) the ability to bring in reinforcements over time. 
> 
> Another thing is we both took and accepted losses that IMO where
greater 
> then would have been acceptable in most situations. I believe as a
pick 
> up game we both saw everything as expendable. In some cases we fought
> units 
> down to 25% or less of their size and still had them move forward. Had
> this 
> been a campaign game I do not believe we would have allowed this level
of 
> loss without a pull back. Just an observation.
> 
> Now what did I do wrong? 
> 
> The way I see it I did many things wrong. First I
> did not continue to hit a unit until it was gone. Thus at the end of
the
> game Ted had 10 of his starting 11 units left. Now some where down to
the
> last vehicle, but that did not matter. 10 of his units where still on
the
> table.
> 
> I failed to understand how important spotters were to my artillery. I
> would 
> use a second battery and more spotters if I was doing this one again. 
> 
> I would have traded my light tanks and Anti-Tank platoons for more
troops.
> 
> The 1 platoon I had the 1 walker platoon worked well. They each killed
> more
> then their value in enemy elements. 
> 
> Last thing I did wrong was once I saw where Ted was going I moved
forward 
> to meet him. I was wrong, I should have waited and let him come to me.
> 
> Overall, I believe the game was great. I know Ted and I both enjoyed
it. 
> So that is what I want to finish these notes on. We had fun!
> 
> Daniel
-----End Original Message----